Path: news.kei.com!news-mail-gateway!not-for-mail
From: yesowitc@rocza.kei.com (M. D. Yesowitch)
Newsgroups: kei.mail.irc-operlist
Subject: Re: idea for channel service (extremely long)
Message-ID: <199605282257.SAA27944@rocza.kei.com>
Date: 28 May 96 22:57:56 GMT
References: yesowitc@rocza.kei.com (M. D. Yesowitch)
Distribution: kei
Organization: Local Mail/News Gateway
Approved: usenet@kei.com
Lines: 109
[..]
Now, to the main discussion.
sandman (herein after "recursion") said:
>To satisfy the bot authors as people exercising the freedom of expression
>under the first amendment then it would amount to 1 channel bot
>per-channel. ths bot would be registered with the service or services it
>is coming from.
You seem to imply bot running is a constitutional right. It is not.
You begin with a false premise. Your basic argument stems from this:
The creater of a channel should control the channel.
This underlying ideal is correct, however distorted. On efnet, once
the channel owner moves on, by signing off or leaving the channel to
go to a different channel, he currently forfits some rights to the
channel.
don't.
On dalnet the channel owner establishes ownership by registering his
channel at which point he can then decide is he wants to be supreme
ruler (auto deop on channel creation) or not.
On undernet, the channel owners, if there is enough interest, and they
pass a vote of the channel committe, jointly share control and rights
to the channel.
The other networks use varients on these three themes.
There are basic concepts, ideologies, underlying these systems.
EFnet - you own it as long as you own it.
DALnet - you own it as long as you use it at least once a month
Undernet - you own it when there are enough people interested in
seeing the channel exist and ever after.
Although it's not often acknowledged, and even less frequently stated,
what people mean when they say "if you want channel services go to
undernet/dalnet" is "What you want doesn't conform to our underlying
ideology. Your ideology is more conformant with another network."
Now beyond this point at which we've seen the premise you started with
is incomplete by virtue of the fact that there isn't a clear majority
who agrees with it, there are technical issues.
Tom and I have spent countless hours hashing out a service that would
appeal to us and it must have the following things.
1) anonymity
2) verification of validity of claims through as anonymous a medium as
possible.
3) secured machine
4) anonymous rmailer that allows the channel owner to communicate with
the maintainers of the system in a way that preserves the anonymity of
the channel owner and perhaps the system maintainer as well.
5) A way to block channel registration on a specific channel.
6) A channel registration service, similar to dalnet (ie: extrinsic to
channel).
On top of this we'd need a set of rules for the verification service
to use.
For example:
If the number of kick/bans for this user exceed a certain amount, he
can not be counted as channel member. This might be proportional to
the amount of times he joins the channel. If for ever two times I
join the channel I get kicked out once and oped once, am I a regular
or a bloody pain in the rear?
How many people constitute a channel? (for dalnet, it's 1, for
undernet, it was once 5 but I hear tell it's 10 now.)
etc. etc.
So even after we've already said maybe we're not interested in channel
services because it doesn't conform to our underlying ideology,
there's a still several giant steps before we can reach a channel
service model.
When the people on this list say "You clearly haven't thought this
through", they may say it in a rude way, but it's meant very
seriously. Instead of being rude and insulting back, prove that they
are wrong. Show them that you have thought about it, that you have
some ideas and that you have a valuable contribution. Don't rely on
blanket assertions and unsupported premises, that what makes this list
tedious to read. (well, that and long, preachy, moralist bullshit)
-m
And I am sorry for the length but I have held off posting on this
topic for over a week.
****************************************************************************
M.D. Yesowitch yesowitc@rocza.kei.com
All Flames to: women-not-to-be-messed-with@kei.com
http://www.kei.com/homepages/yesowitc/